<p>I found this article quite interesting by a UCLA professor. I tend to agree that not all ideas are equal.</p>
<p><a href=“Turning academia into a cafeteria”>Turning academia into a cafeteria;
<p>Could be an interesting article if it did not conflate so much - that being the “choice” he decries and those that conservative students (in some cases) are asking for. </p>
<p>Permit me an example.</p>
<p>I do not think that ID has any place in a science classroom. Theories have a place in a science classroom; hypotheses based on religion do not. There is no true scientific debate between the two. As pointed out (by Daniel Dennett), if ID were truly a scientific theory, scientists the world over would be trying to discredit it for the fame of radically altering a basic foundation of biology - doing to bio what Einstein did to physics. </p>
<p>That, however, is an entirely different situation from ignoring real debates. His examples are all a little skewed towards ridiculous examples - no one thinks that a class on early Christianity should teach anything but that. However, a professor of a class on constitutional law should not roll his eyes when a libertarian speaks up - which is what happened at my law school (frequently). In that situation, to teach only one side is to ignore the intellectual debate and the scholarly works that don’t agree with what is little more than a stated position. </p>
<p>Did like the distinction between professional academic freedom (so long as it does not rely on indoctrination) and students demanding to be taught certain things.</p>
<p>Just my $0.02.</p>
<p>I agree with Ariesathena. The article has a very muddled argument and some bogus examples. It starts off by discussing academic honesty among students (eg. no cheating, no plagiarizing) and ends with a discussion of ID. Very strange.</p>
<p>The article does lack clarity. Nevertheless, I think sometimes people accept scientific knowledge as dogma but then are more inclined to view knowledge and ideas in the humanities and social sciences. I think even in the humanities and social sciences, while certainly debate is warranted, ideas need to be back with sources.</p>